Op-ed: the rumored 7.85″ iPad’s price, specs, and place in Apple’s lineup

What will it take for Apple to challenge the Nexus 7?

Rumors of a new, smaller iPad have been flying fast and furious lately. While this isn't the first time we've heard noise about such a device, recent reports from normally reliable news sources like Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the recent introduction of the Nexus 7, have lent this round of speculation some extra credence. If the Nexus 7's sales are as good as its critical reception has been, it could be enough to convince people that a seven- or eight-inch tablet can succeed when done well.

There has been plenty of reason to doubt a smaller iPad's existence: nearly every write-up about it includes some mention of Steve Jobs' infamous "you'll have to sandpaper your fingers to use a smaller tablet than the iPad" comments, and his vehement opposition to the idea of a smaller-than-original iPad was enough to convince me it wasn't happening in the short term. Now, the presence of seemingly legitimate sources for the swirling rumors, as well as Joel Bernstein's excellent analysis of the smaller iPad's size (which explains how the touch points in properly designed apps on a 7.85" iPad would be about as large as properly designed apps on a 3.5" screen), have convinced me otherwise.

Questions still remain: what kind of hardware would a smaller iPad use? How much would it cost? How would it fit into Apple's existing iOS lineup? I'll look at Apple's current lineup, its past behaviors, and the facts about the Nexus 7 in order to give you what I think are the best answers to those questions.

The screen

First, let's talk about the screen, and why it makes sense that this first iteration of the product wouldn't use a "Retina" display: Daring Fireball's John Gruber offers up a hypothesis that Apple could make the screen for the smaller iPad from the same screen material used for the iPhone 3GS, simply cutting the LCD material into 7.85" panels rather than 3.5" panels. This makes sense given that the pixel density for a 7.85" screen at 1024x768 is pretty much identical to that of a 3.5" screen at 480x320.

It follows that Apple could also construct a Retina version of the smaller iPad by using the same material currently used in iPod touch and iPhone 4/4S displays. In the long run, this does indeed make sense and it's probably what the smaller iPad would move to eventually, but I doubt it would be used in a first-generation product despite Apple's push toward Retina displays. Remember that the Retina display in the 2012 iPad needs both a gigantic battery and a new graphics processor that can get pretty toasty when fully loaded. Advancements in display technology and the process technology used to make these chips will eventually make a chip like the A5X, the Retina display it can drive, and the battery they both need feasible in a smaller 7.85" device, but it seems unlikely right now.

The processor

Assuming the smaller iPad will be using a 1024x768 screen like the iPad 2's, it would make the most sense for a smaller iPad to continue using the same dual-core A5 processor currently powering the iPad 2 and the iPhone 4S. Apple has been making this chip for a while, meaning that yields are going to be good, prices will be cheap, and developers won't have to change anything to support its capabilities. The low-power, 32nm version of the A5 that gives the $399 iPad 2 better battery life than the original iPad seems like a great fit for a smaller tablet with a smaller battery.

The possibility does exist that Apple could create a 32nm version of the 2012 iPad's A5X processor in order to reduce power requirements and push a Retina display, but let's check out the size of the current 45nm A5X relative to the 45nm A5:

Even if the A5X is shrunk to 32nm, and even if that shrinkage reduced the power requirements and heat output enough to make the A5X feasible in a smaller tablet, the A5X is much larger than the A5. This means fewer dies could be harvested from a single silicon wafer, increasing the cost of each chip. To hit a price point below the current 10" iPads while also maintaining its traditional healthy profit margins, Apple will want to cut costs wherever it can. Hence, the cheaper, proven 32nm A5 (and its accompanying non-Retina display) makes more sense than a hypothetical 32nm A5X.

Storage

Lastly, let's talk about storage: the 8GB in the entry-level Nexus is not nearly enough for an iPad, especially since the advent of Retina apps and their accompanying gigantic graphics started blowing up app sizes. An app like iMovie weighs in at 403MB, while a game like Infinity Blade II is a whopping 1.03GB. Even the 16GB iPad is feeling a bit small these days when fully loaded with media and apps, and I think anything less than that will cause major headaches on a smaller iPad running those same apps. 16GB seems like a reasonable minimum, with 32GB and 64GB upgrades available for those who want to shell out—same as the current 10" iPad and (most of) the iPod touch lineup.

The price

One of the most appealing things about the Nexus 7 is its price, especially given the overall quality of the tablet. But looking at its price and assuming that Apple must hit the same price points doesn't take all of the facts into consideration.

Google has said publicly that it's not making money on the Nexus 7. And the component analysis from iSuppli confirms that it's probably breaking even on the $199 8GB model, while turning a small profit on the $249 16GB model. Apple, with its extensive and well-managed supply chain, could probably build a 7.85" iPad more cheaply than Asus and Google are spending to build the Nexus 7, but Apple's product strategy has always been to sell products for a premium price and with a premium profit margin.

There's also the fact that non-iPad tablets have historically had to undercut the iPad significantly on price to attract consumer interest. You can see that reflected in the $200 price point of the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire, and 10" competing tablets like the HP Touchpad are also instructive. At its starting price of $500, the HP Touchpad was sitting unsold in storerooms. A few weeks later, its unprecedented fire sale price of $99 made it a bestseller. Apple can afford to mark up the price of the iPad relative to other tablets in its price class simply by virtue of the tablet being an iPad.

For these reasons, I see a new, smaller iPad with the specs outlined above starting at $299. This puts it within spitting distance of the $249 16GB Nexus 7 while maintaining a healthy profit margin, and slotting right in between the $199 iPod touch and the $399 iPad 2. If that seems too high, remember: if a smaller iPad doesn't sell well at its introductory price, it's much easier for Apple to drop the price after the fact than it would be to raise it, as we've seen with initially expensive products like the iPhone and MacBook Air. And doing so will usually get you good press and make people give you a second look.

What of the iPod touch?

The iPod touch shouldn't go anywhere, and it's about due for an upgrade to boot.

The prospect of a smaller iPad also raises questions about the fate of the iPod touch which, for all intents and purposes, serves the role of "low-cost mini tablet computer" in Apple's present-day lineup. Even if a smaller iPad never surfaces, the presence of the much more powerful Nexus 7 at the same price point means that the two-year-old iPod needs to either get more powerful, less expensive, or both.

The iPod touch currently accounts for more than half of all iPods sold, and it's a great way to get an iPhone-style device without shelling out for a phone contract, so it's probably not going anywhere. (Its last real refresh was in September of 2010.) Regardless of whether a new, smaller iPad is manufactured, I think it's pretty likely that we'll see something new this year, probably in September at Apple's traditional iPod event.

I can see several things being true for the new iPod touch: A new processor is definitely in the cards, since the current iPod touch's single-core A4 is getting pretty long in the tooth. Either the low-power dual-core A5 in the refreshed iPad 2 (probably clocked at about 800MHz, as in the iPhone 4S) or possibly the harvested single-core version of the A5 found in the current Apple TV are the most likely candidates. If the iPhone 5's screen is to be elongated, the same will probably happen to the iPod touch as well. A slightly better camera and a bump in storage capacity from the current minimum of 8GB also seem plausible (if not exactly a certain in something this cheap. 8GB is a small but still workable amount of space for iPhone apps, and Apple is still happy to push devices with that capacity, as evidenced by both the 8GB iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4).

Whatever happens, I don't think the smaller iPad will have much impact on the iPod Touch's price, which was just lowered from $229 to $199 last year. The 64GB touch is available for the same $399 as the 16GB iPad 2, which suggests to me that Apple isn't too worried about a little overlap as long as its products are sufficiently differentiated.

Conclusions

I imagine that the smaller 7.85" iPad—if it does indeed exist—is more or less a smaller version of the iPad 2 that's cheaper than the current 10" iPad but a bit pricier than the current iPod touch. If the device starts at $250 or even $300, it will be good enough and cheap enough to fight the coming flood of small, cheap Android tablets. It will also slot neatly into the iOS lineup between the iPod touch and (subsidized) iPhone on one end of the spectrum, and the larger iPads at the other. Apple has the upper hand here in all of the ways that matter—market share, mind share, and developer support are all healthy pillars of the current iPad ecosystem. As good as the Nexus 7 is, all Apple has to do is show up to the fight in order to threaten the Nexus 7's success.

133 Reader Comments

Sure there might come a time when Apple feels the need to "challenge the Nexus 7" and "threaten the Nexus 7's success", but so far the Nexus 7 hasn't had any success and Apple has no need to "challenge it".

That said, I'm probably going to end up with a Nexus 7 just for testing purposes, and I'm curious if it ends up in a drawer the other 99% of the time. I just can't see wanting that size.

The only demographic I think it appeals to is people who want an ereader and a tablet, but don't want to spring for the cost of both and are willing to deal with the generally poorer experience of reading with the backlight. I've a number of friends who picked up a Kindle Fire (on the assumption they'd be able to load real Android on it; Amazon sure made that a pain for them) precisely because they wanted a Kindle and a tablet but didn't see the sense in dropping $100 on one and another $250+ on the other.

Me, I like my dedicated e-reader, and if I were going to get a tablet it'd be the full size iPad. But I do think there's a market for the higher portability: it's a dedicated reading machine with broader capabilities than actual dedicated ereaders.

Going non-retina would be an odd choice IMHO, battery concerns notwithstanding. Apple has shown that retina graphics are the way forward and backpedaling now would just muddle the message. I'm not holding my breath for an 8" iPad, especially if the iPhone 5 grows the screen like the rumors suggest.

I would argue that from the iPod Touch to the 10" iPad, Apple's tablet lineup would be too big. It would need to be consolidated. I don't think many folks buy the 64GB iPod Touch (seems a bit overkill - my 32GB iPhone is full but its got a ton of music and movies and apps) so we can start there and trim the prices on the iPod Touch lineup (seen how much cheaper flash storage is now vs a year ago? Apple should be able to bump capacities and cut the price since flash prices have fallen through the floor).

That said, I'm probably going to end up with a Nexus 7 just for testing purposes, and I'm curious if it ends up in a drawer the other 99% of the time. I just can't see wanting that size.

See, I'm the exact opposite. At the 10" iPad's size and weight, I prefer my 11" MacBook Air every time. I've got a Nexus 7 on order now because I want something bigger than my phone to use at home, but lighter and easier to hold for long stretches than the current iPad.

That said, for traveling, I normally forego tablets entirely and just take my phone at this point. Wonder if that'll change.

Going non-retina would be an odd choice IMHO, battery concerns notwithstanding. Apple has shown that retina graphics are the way forward and backpedaling now would just muddle the message. I'm not holding my breath for an 8" iPad, especially if the iPhone 5 grows the screen like the rumors suggest.

Definitely. But their lineup isn't quite at a point where Retina is a given in any new device just yet, and there are the aforementioned cost/technical constraints...

This is not a 7" tablet in that it is nearly 40% bigger than the kindle fire. It will be less portable and more readable. I would've gotten this over an ipad3 had this been out early this year and was < 250.

.....recent reports from normally reliable news sources like Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the recent introduction of the Nexus 7, have lent this round of speculation some extra credence.....

This is laughable on a good day.

Quote:

If the Nexus 7's sales are as good as its critical reception has been,

SPECULATION IS BULLSHIT ! Wait until it dips into the market first - God Damn.

Quote:

There has been plenty of reason to doubt a smaller iPad's existence:

This is right up there with an iPhone 6 coming out 6 months after the 5th iPhone was released and an iPhone Mini.

Slow news day ARS - need some filler for the Site ? Justify the payroll ?

Quote:

Remember that the Retina display in the 2012 iPad needs both a gigantic battery and a new graphics processor that can get pretty toasty when fully loaded. Advancements in display technology and the process technology used to make these chips will eventually make a chip like the A5X,

This is stupid. Why couldn't Apple use some of the guts form the 4s for this instead of exclusively relying on iPad parts ? They would have more room to spread things out in a "larger" iPhonesque form-factor - for things like the battery and the processor.

Seeing as how they already pushed the "retina" feature to the iPhone and they've hit Gen 2 (maybe Gen 3) between both the current iPad and the new MBP - seems like IF they bothered building this out - they might just go ahead and skip the baby step - kind of like they did when they DID NOT release a Black and White Display version of the first iPhone as opposed to the first rounds of iPods that came out. You know - seeing as how you already discuss how Apple has been doing several things for quite a while and has the process down by now... We wouldn't want to contradict ourselves mid-article would we ?

Your Analysis is falling apart Andrew.

Quote:

One of the most appealing things about the Nexus 7 is its price, especially given the overall quality of the tablet. But looking at its price and assuming that Apple will, nay, must hit the same price points doesn't take all of the facts into consideration.

They could compete if they exclude the Cellular option completely. Otherwise that would be the base price.

Quote:

but Apple's product strategy has always been to sell products for a premium price and with a premium profit margin.

Let us not forget Apple has not been turning a huge profit on the Apple TV. And pre-iPhone the iPods were not racking them in the big bucks either - that revenue stream came from music sales.

Quote:

There's also the fact that non-iPad tablets, historically, have had to undercut the iPad significantly on price to attract consumer interest. You can see that reflected in the $200 price point of the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire,

This doesn't make any sense - seeing as how the Kindle does not directly compete with the iPad and the Nexus is not even on the market yet. You comparing Oranges to Anvils.

Find some other direction to go with your writing. Because you fail miserably at speculative analyst. I hope to hell that was not your major in college. This reads as bad as a Chris Foresman article does most days.

Damn ARS Quit writing fluff pieces and get some folks in that know what the fuck they're talking about.

Have a 7" Nook Color I picked when they first came out running CM 7.2 and and iPad 2 and it's surprising how often the iPad just sits on the couch and how little it get's used for anything other than AAC (what it was purchased for). The NC goes everywhere with me, mostly for reading and light surfing. Surprisingly I find surfing the web easier on the NC but that's probably because I'm used to Dolphin vs. Safari.

At 10", I'd rather use a laptop as the weight of the iPad is so close that the advantage of a keyboard overrides the touch functionality, but that's just me. The iPad's success would suggest most people don't think of it the same way.

Me, I like my dedicated e-reader, and if I were going to get a tablet it'd be the full size iPad. But I do think there's a market for the higher portability: it's a dedicated reading machine with broader capabilities than actual dedicated ereaders.

I agree with this. However, the one major advantage the (e-ink) Kindles have over anything with an LCD as e-readers is battery life. I love the fact that I never have to worry about the charge in my Kindle 3G. I use an iPad at work as a pdf viewer/organiser for journal articles and it works well, but it needs recharging every couple of days.

That said, I'm probably going to end up with a Nexus 7 just for testing purposes, and I'm curious if it ends up in a drawer the other 99% of the time. I just can't see wanting that size.

See, I'm the exact opposite. At the 10" iPad's size and weight, I prefer my 11" MacBook Air every time. I've got a Nexus 7 on order now because I want something bigger than my phone to use at home, but lighter and easier to hold for long stretches than the current iPad.

That said, for traveling, I normally forego tablets entirely and just take my phone at this point. Wonder if that'll change.

The nice thing I find about the current crop of 16:9 7" tablets is that I can comfortably grip them edge to edge with my medium size male hands, and they're small enough to slip in a jacket or pants cargo pocket. Not possible with the full size iPad, and remains to be seen if it's possible with the 4:3 iPad mini.

For me, personally, one thing that makes tablets so interesting is the way they can replace paper mediums. Magazines and comic books for instance. 7" just starts to get too small to make that possible. I did this quick mockup the other day that should be roughly to scale of a paper comic book, vs iPad, vs a Nexus 7:

On the iPad (especially the retina version) you can read comfortably without zooming. I just don't think you can do that once you go smaller. Straight text? Even the web? Sure, fine. If that's what you want you'll be okay I'm sure. My needs/wants are more expansive than that.

Even for those that prefer a 10", there are niche uses for a 7" (or almost 8" as the case may be here). My brother occasionally rally races and we have an iPad 3 connected via Bluetooth to an OBD II monitor. Allows a lot of data to be monitored in real time, but the iPad takes up one hell of a lot of space and obscures the view. On the other hand, an iPhone is too small to see easily at a glance (and you really want to be paying attention while racing!!). A 7" would be perfect I think for this. We ordered a Nexus 7" as the monitoring software was available for it too, but if a 7" iPad was available we could have just as easily gone for it (and save the cost of repurchasing the SW).

I'm sure there are some other feasible uses, but mostly I'm in the 10" camp.

Hold onto the handrail and stand to the right while viewing the map to your connecting flight. Try that with a 10" tablet. The maxiPad is not a device that those who manage by walking around, or sell face to face would consider as a knowledgeable personal assistant. Face it. Steve Jobs got the tablet design wrong.

Lastly, let's talk about storage: the 8GB in the entry-level Nexus is not nearly enough for an iPad, especially since the advent of Retina apps and their accompanying gigantic graphics started blowing up app sizes.

Apple sells an 8GB iPhone 4 with a 960x640 screen. Why couldn't they sell an 8GB iPad with a 1024x768 screen? You wouldn't be able to load on much besides apps (i.e., little music, and definitely no video or photo collections), but that's a trade off many people might make to save $50.

Quote:

As good as the Nexus 7 is, all Apple has to do is show up to the fight in order to threaten the Nexus 7's success.

Indeed, that's why I think it's almost certain they'll release it. At a minimum, it will let all the air out of the room in the "mid size" tablet market and relegate Kindle Fire 2 and Nexus 7 to niche status. And if it actually sells a lot of units too, then Apple will make more money. There's almost no downside from Apple's perspective.

I see a 7" tablet as a supplementary device to a "full-size" tablet and a phone. The benefit I see comes mainly from connectivity options through LTE, USB, SD, HDMI out etc. with those features available the use cases become more expansive but without them, I feel like it's simply the device that's not as good as my tablet and harder to carry around than my phone.

I agree with nearly everything that you stated except in concern to the iPod Touch. I still think that the iPad Mini, if it is real, will replace the iPod Touch in Apple's lineup.

The iPod is a product that is quickly moving into niche status. Also, now that Apple is keeping three generations of their iPhones it is feasible to buy an older iPhone without contract for around what one would pay for an iPod Touch. Couple this with the pay-as-you-go retailers now getting the iPhone and I just don't see much of a need for the iPod Touch anymore. Most people that I know who own an iPod Touch are kids who aren't old enough to have a phone yet, and for them an 8" tablet at basically the same price as the current iPod Touch would be a much better fit. Except as an iPod, and well Apple has the shuffle and nano for that.

Oh, and John Gruber had an excellent point concerning Steve Job's comment concerning 7" tablets. Basically, they don't mean much of anything today concerning the fabled 8" iPad Mini.

Lastly, let's talk about storage: the 8GB in the entry-level Nexus is not nearly enough for an iPad, especially since the advent of Retina apps and their accompanying gigantic graphics started blowing up app sizes.

Apple sells an 8GB iPhone 4 with a 960x640 screen. Why couldn't they sell an 8GB iPad with a 1024x768 screen? You wouldn't be able to load on much besides apps (i.e., little music, and definitely no video or photo collections), but that's a trade off many people might make to save $50.

Apple's devices, as far as I am aware, don't download target-specific assets, which is to say if I download a copy of a Retina-enabled iPhone app onto an iPhone 3GS, it's going to download not just the 320x480 assets it needs to run on the 3GS, but also the 640x960 assets it would need to run on an iPhone 4/4S. This means that in any given-Retina enabled app, non-Retina devices are downloading a bunch of assets that take up space even though they aren't doing anything.

This gets even worse with universal/iPad apps, because you're ALSO downloading 2048x1536 assets that take up a much larger amount of space even if you've got a 1024x768 iPad. 8GB in an iPad, in my estimation, would cause a decidedly un-Apple amount of hassle for people with a lot of apps, because they'd have to be deleting old stuff to make room for new stuff all the time.

An 8GB iPad is *possible* but it's an awful small amount of space to use for Retina graphics, is all I'm saying.

It's no secret that iBooks hasn't really taken off. Even if they own an iPad even I know just uses the Kindle client. The current iPad's LCD screen is to refective to outside (or even near a window) and it's both too hard on the eyes and too heavy to read comfortably for any length of time.

When/if Apple does make a 7 iPad it will be aimed squarly at the ebook market. I also don't think it will simply be a smaller, lower resolution, cheaper iPad. It will be designed from the ground up shape, wieght, buttons, screen and everything else for reading. For example, Apple filed a patent last year for a mixed epaper/lcd screen (link below).

There's no evidence to say that Apple has actually manged to build this display but I don't see them just releasing a small, cheap tablet, low quality just because everyone else is. It jsut doesn't fit.

If they do it's just proof of how far the company has moved away from Jobs' direction.

Let's be clear: this is NOT a 7" tablet. It has been pointed out that 7.85" is closer to 8" than the 9.7" iPad is to 10", but we all the iPad 10".

Further, a 7.85" screen actually has 40% more pixels than a 7" screen. Remember this is the diagonal measurement. Jobs famously dissed the 7" screens but obviously said nothing about the usability of an (almost)-8" screen.

For me, personally, one thing that makes tablets so interesting is the way they can replace paper mediums. Magazines and comic books for instance. 7" just starts to get too small to make that possible. I did this quick mockup the other day that should be roughly to scale of a paper comic book, vs iPad, vs a Nexus 7:

On the iPad (especially the retina version) you can read comfortably without zooming. I just don't think you can do that once you go smaller. Straight text? Even the web? Sure, fine. If that's what you want you'll be okay I'm sure. My needs/wants are more expansive than that.

I'm starting to think this complaint about 7" has a lot to do with a person's vision. I have perfect vision up close, and on my Fire I don't even bother to zoom images when reading comics(which is a primary use of it for me). I consistently set text sizes to the smallest possible, etc etc. So for me, a larger screen just means more weight and less portability for a 'larger display' that I do not really need.

But for someone who is far-sighted(I'm near sighted and uses glasses to drive) I can totally see why 7" just would not make sense. If I had to zoom and pan around on a comic it would quickly become more annoying than a physical copy and I'd be desperate for a larger screen.

But I really am thinking this is about people's comfortable reading habits rather than the size itself.

[quote="Aurich"]For me, personally, one thing that makes tablets so interesting is the way they can replace paper mediums. Magazines and comic books for instance. 7" just starts to get too small to make that possible. I did this quick mockup the other day that should be roughly to scale of a paper comic book, vs iPad, vs a Nexus 7[quote]

It would be interesting to see an iPad mini mockup to match. Judging by the black bands it would suffer the same problem as watching a 16:9 film on an iPad mini and actually be the same size (roughly) as the nexus 7.

Also comic reading on Android can go full screen, same as video so you can lose the soft buttons and use the full height.

This is not a 7" tablet in that it is nearly 40% bigger than the kindle fire. It will be less portable and more readable. I would've gotten this over an ipad3 had this been out early this year and was < 250.

Oh good, so we won't have to worry about Apple suing everyone else for making 7" tablets!

The reason I don't own a 10" tablet is that they are too big for casual reading, but still too small to be able to read a full size textbook page or comic. It's a weird size for me. When I tried using an iPad for textbooks, I found myself constantly resizing and shifting around on the pages. It was more trouble than it's worth. I'd love a 13" with a thin border that wouldn't be larger than a lot of books, but could display them full size. Probably never happen though.

I have a Nook Color now that read on, though I have to blow off some uses for it, and just read text on it primarily. It works though, because it's light and cheap and small enough to go with me easily.

I would look at the fictional 7" iPad if it became real, had a better display, but at $300? No way. Not worth it to me. Maybe at $250.

On the iPad (especially the retina version) you can read comfortably without zooming. I just don't think you can do that once you go smaller. Straight text? Even the web? Sure, fine. If that's what you want you'll be okay I'm sure. My needs/wants are more expansive than that.

This is true for magazines and comics but 7-8 inches is perfect for good, old fanshioned reading. See paperback books.

This is a really convincing article. I've been skeptical of the 7" iPad, but it really seems like everything is lining up for it. The main issue for me was how Apple manages third-party app support, but now its been explained (here and elsewhere) that at 7.85" and 1024x768, the pixel density of the smaller display would be identical to the iPhone 3GS. In other words, scale down existing iPad apps and tap targets will be no smaller than they are on the iPhone - so no issue there.

So, add it all up and it looks like it makes a lot of sense:

(a) Apple can produce smaller tablet displays cheaply, easily, and therefore more profitably than anyone else (cut the same displays used for the iPhone 3GS to the new size)

(b) The entire iPad app ecosystem will be "built in" on day 1, providing a huge advantage over Android tablets

(c) They'll suck all the air out of the current "low-end" tablet market and basically kill competing products before they even have a chance to get started

With all the rumours flying about, and now some more analysis, how long can it be until we finally get a review?

I'm looking forward to the iPad Mini review before Apple announce it. It won't be Ars that does it, but a number of other sites have ably demonstrated that they didn't need to use, or even hold a product before writing and publishing a review of it.

So....you don't read the threads where people explain why they prefer 7" and price is really not a primary motivator? Its not like all of us cannot afford a 10" tablet(I certainly can), or that we have never used a 10" tablet(as part of my job I use them on a regular basis). A lot of us prefer 7" tablets for reasons we've stated repeatedly. For me its convenience and portability. Price is a very very distant factor, almost not worth mentioning. Anything below a grand is eligible to be an impulse buy, so its just not important.

For me a tablet is like the camera wars. People went on and on about how cell phones were not reasonable replacements for various camera types, but at the end of the day the best camera to own was the one that would be with you when you needed it. Which usually ended up being a phone camera. Same with tablets, the one that is the most portable is the one that is most likely to be with me when I hit a situation where I need a tablet. As a result, 7" wins since 10" does not fit in my pockets and as a result is not likely to be with me on a daily basis.

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.